Kerala High Court Upholds Infant Vaccination Rule For ₹6,000 Maternity Benefit Under PMMVY Scheme

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to Rule 7(2)(ii) of the PMVVY Rules and observed:

“it is evident that the benefit of Rs.6,000/- shall be granted to a girl child, provided the child has received all due vaccinations till the child attained the age of fourteen weeks from the date of birth as admissible under the Universal Immunization Programme of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The PMMVY scheme nowhere states that it is an absolute right conferred upon every lactating mother to be given the benefit under the scheme. The PMMVY scheme itself is formulated in such a manner that it is conditional and unless the conditions specified therein are fulfilled, no one can claim the benefit. The choice is upon each individual to claim the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme…There is no fundamental right for any person to receive the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme and therefore, prescribing eligibility conditions cannot be regarded as constitutionally invalid.”

The petitioner's contention that the mandate of vaccination was violative of Article 47 of the Constitution since State has a duty to prohibit drugs injurious to health was also rejected by the Court:

“Even if it is assumed, as contended by the petitioner, that the immunization has side effects,…the health benefits of immunisation far outweigh the side effects and therefore the measures initiated by the Government to promote and encourage such vaccination cannot be said to be unconstitutional or arbitrary or ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court referred to Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India and Others and added that efficiency of paediatric vaccinations cannot be scrutinised by courts:

“in respect of paediatric vaccinations, the Supreme Court recognized such vaccinations and noted....that “the decision taken by the Union of India to vaccinate children in this country is in tune with global scientific consensus and expert bodies like the WHO, the UNICEF and the CDC and it is beyond the scope of review for this Court to second - guess expert opinion, on the basis of which the Government has drawn up its policy.” Thus the efficiency and benefit of such paediatric vaccinations are not open for judicial scrutiny.”

The Court was considering a writ petition filed by a father seeking a declaration that the vaccination as a condition for benefits under PMMVY scheme is unconstitutional for being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

According to the petitioner, insistence of production of vaccination certificate of his second girl child for his wife to receive the benefit of the scheme was an intrusion into his personal liberty. He relied on the decision in Jacob Puliyel's case and submitted that there is indirect coercion to vaccinate his child.

The Union took a stand that the scheme was initiated with a view to implement the maternity benefit provision under Section 4 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The provision provides for a conditional conferment of the benefit subject to the scheme framed by the Central government, it was explained. It was submitted that the aim of mandating early vaccination as a condition to provide the benefit was since the same reduces infant mortality rate.

It was added that the intent of the cash incentive under scheme is to enable mothers to take adequate rest before and after delivery of first child and also bring in a positive attitude towards girl children. The Union also challenged the maintainability of the plea since the petitioner is not the intended beneficiary of the scheme. The State also made submissions supporting the Union's stand.

The Court, at the outset, remarked that the plea was not maintainable, accepting the Union's argument:

“The PMMVY scheme is a conditional scheme, conferring the benefit to a lactating mother. The mother of the child is not before this Court. The scheme contemplates the incentive to be directly transferred to the mothers bank account. The writ petitioner has no legally enforceable right to claim any benefit under the PMMVY scheme, merely because he claims that he is the father of the child. Hence, as rightly argued by the respondents the writ petition itself is not maintainable.”

The Court then proceeded to address the contentions raised on merits. It noted that the benefit under the scheme was not a right or absolute and it is upon each individual to choose whether or not to claim the benefit under it. It relied on the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. [(2003) 11 SCC 689].

The Court was of the opinion that the reliance on the decision in Jacob Puliyel case was misplaced. It proceeded to distinguish the same and observed that it cannot be used as a precedent with respect to all vaccinations.

The Court thus dismissed the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 1729 of 2026

Case Title: Ahamed Junaid P.S. v. Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 460

Counsel for the respondents: Alka Warrier – Central Government Counsel, Anirudh Kadavil – Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment